From my ai...The article critiques the use of online polls for policy decisions, focusing on a recent survey conducted by the City of McCall regarding the renewal of a local option tax (LOT) for street infrastructure. The author argues that the survey, which had a 17% response rate, was misrepresented as reflecting broad public opinion despite its limited sample size and lack of scientific methodology.
Key points include:
Flawed Polling: The survey was open to anyone, without verification of voter status, and did not ensure a representative sample. Yet, city officials used it to justify strong community support for the tax renewal.
Misuse of Polling Data: Officials ignored negative feedback and questionable polling methods while presenting the results as conclusive evidence of public sentiment.
The Case for Referendums: The author suggests that advisory votes (referendums) are a better alternative to online polls for gauging public opinion. These votes, conducted during official elections, ensure higher turnout and a more accurate reflection of the electorate's views.
Lessons from Marketing & Governance: Marketing professionals use polls to test concepts rather than dictate policy, a lesson public officials should heed. Additionally, historical examples, such as failed product launches (New Coke, Google Glass), highlight the dangers of relying too heavily on flawed polling.
The article ultimately argues that public officials should avoid using unscientific online polls to justify policy decisions and instead rely on elections and referendums to accurately gauge public opinion.
Hah. RM. Are you saying I'm just too "blah, blah, blah"? I'm delighted to see that I have no quibbles with the ai summary. Except that I note that your ai preference does not cite the substantiation behind my conjectures. It represents them accurately. But how does that help you evaluate whether or not I'm bat-shit crazy?
“The eternal sandstorm of yesterdays.” Recent polling suggests that these dunes are reaching neck level for some elected officials. The same poll also indicated that 17% of the respondents are “bat-shit crazy”.
How could I not take that as a compliment given where it came from. I know Frau Wrencher my HS English teacher would be gratified, or maybe feel vindicated, to hear that. Her relentless talks after school and shadow suddenly appearing next to my desk might have done more good than just get me through with a D+. Anyway, too late for that…I am stuck with “construction guy” now.
By the way, I forgot to mention how much I enjoyed your piece. Much of today’s Media would be lost if the word poll fell out of the dictionary. Especially if all the favored verbs fell with it….suggest, imply, signal, indicate, point, predict, foretell…..I like your take on it.
From my ai...The article critiques the use of online polls for policy decisions, focusing on a recent survey conducted by the City of McCall regarding the renewal of a local option tax (LOT) for street infrastructure. The author argues that the survey, which had a 17% response rate, was misrepresented as reflecting broad public opinion despite its limited sample size and lack of scientific methodology.
Key points include:
Flawed Polling: The survey was open to anyone, without verification of voter status, and did not ensure a representative sample. Yet, city officials used it to justify strong community support for the tax renewal.
Misuse of Polling Data: Officials ignored negative feedback and questionable polling methods while presenting the results as conclusive evidence of public sentiment.
The Case for Referendums: The author suggests that advisory votes (referendums) are a better alternative to online polls for gauging public opinion. These votes, conducted during official elections, ensure higher turnout and a more accurate reflection of the electorate's views.
Lessons from Marketing & Governance: Marketing professionals use polls to test concepts rather than dictate policy, a lesson public officials should heed. Additionally, historical examples, such as failed product launches (New Coke, Google Glass), highlight the dangers of relying too heavily on flawed polling.
The article ultimately argues that public officials should avoid using unscientific online polls to justify policy decisions and instead rely on elections and referendums to accurately gauge public opinion.
Hah. RM. Are you saying I'm just too "blah, blah, blah"? I'm delighted to see that I have no quibbles with the ai summary. Except that I note that your ai preference does not cite the substantiation behind my conjectures. It represents them accurately. But how does that help you evaluate whether or not I'm bat-shit crazy?
“The eternal sandstorm of yesterdays.” Recent polling suggests that these dunes are reaching neck level for some elected officials. The same poll also indicated that 17% of the respondents are “bat-shit crazy”.
I think you just summarized the entire commentary of this Substack so far. You should have gone into journalism, Sam. :)
How could I not take that as a compliment given where it came from. I know Frau Wrencher my HS English teacher would be gratified, or maybe feel vindicated, to hear that. Her relentless talks after school and shadow suddenly appearing next to my desk might have done more good than just get me through with a D+. Anyway, too late for that…I am stuck with “construction guy” now.
By the way, I forgot to mention how much I enjoyed your piece. Much of today’s Media would be lost if the word poll fell out of the dictionary. Especially if all the favored verbs fell with it….suggest, imply, signal, indicate, point, predict, foretell…..I like your take on it.